Kingdom of God: Both Cosmic and Particular
Two interconnected but different conceptions of “kingdom” in the Bible.
The “Kingdom of God” is a major theological concept in the Bible. It should be clear what this concept means, but (as is usually the case with Christians in different theological traditions), we have debated over what the kingdom is.
Some say it is God’s rule in the hearts of believers. (This view is simple and preaches, but it doesn’t encapsulate the entirety of what the Bible says.)
Others say that the kingdom of God must be seen exclusively as the people of God ruled by the king, in other words, the church. (This is the view of moist Anabaptists.)
Still others say it will be God’s rule over the nation of Israel in the future. (This is the view of old-style dispensationalists).
And there is the prevailing view among evangelicals today: That the Kingdom of God is an “already/not yet” thing: God rules (already) in the hearts of believers now, and will (not yet) rule over everything physically and spiritually in the future.
But perhaps “kingdom” can have both a particular and a universal definition. Yep, I went there. Both / and. And no, this isn’t a cop-out to appease everyone. It is what the biblical texts lead me to believe.
Cosmic: King of Everything
From the opening chapters of Genesis when God creates everything and then places humans in charge as his image bearers (or vice-regents), we see God as the ruler of everything. The universal rule of God is evident when Scripture proclaims that “God is the King of all the earth” (Psalm 47:7).
Even Nebuchadnezzar was forced to acknowledge that “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (Daniel 4:25).
It cannot be any clearer:
“The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19).
Particular: King of Israel and the Church
But at the same time, Israel was called out of the world to be the particular manifestation of God’s kingdom. Upon their rescue from bondage in Egypt, God told them, “If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6).
This same designation is carried over to apply to the New Testament church, for the people of God are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
In Revelation, Jesus is both the “the ruler of kings on earth” who also loves the particular people of the church, for he “has freed us from our sins by his blood” and “made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father,” and God the Father is to receive “glory and dominion forever and ever” (Revelation 1:6).
Two Aspects of the Kingdom of God
Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke writes,
“The Bible bears witness to two forms of God’s kingdom: a universal kingdom and a particular kingdom.
By God’s universal kingdom is meant the activity of God (‘elohim: “the transcendent, omnipotent Creator and Sustainer of all things”) in exercising his sovereignty over all things…
By God’s particular kingdom is meant God’s activity in exercising his authority over his subjects who, out of their faith and love for him, serve only him…
Considering these two aspects of God’s kingdom, we see that there is a twofold emphasis on God’s kingship: he is King of all the earth (2 Kings 19:15; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18; Pss. 29:10; 99:1-4) and of his chosen people in particular (Ex. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15).
(Bruce K. Waltke, “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament: Definitions and Story,” in The Kingdom of God, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), pp. 49-51.)
Practical Application: Our Work Matters.
If there are indeed two interconnected but different conceptions of “kingdom” in the Bible, it explains why Christians in the particular kingdom (both personally and in the church community) have certain callings within that particular sphere and how they are also to have other extended callings in the culture as well (i.e., their call to do what they must to participate in God’s mission to redeem everything in the world).
If God is the king of both his people and the entirety of the cosmos, then this creates all sorts of callings or vocations for the one submitted to that lordship.
Greg Allison sums it up best:
“The church lives the reality of the inaugurated kingdom by seeking to advance that kingdom wherever the church’s members—the citizens of the kingdom—live, work, and play: in neighborhoods, work-places, governmental agencies, financial establishments, sports programs, and other institutions and structures.
Specifically, the church takes seriously the so-called ‘cultural mandate’ (Gen. 1:28), or the commission enjoined upon all human beings to engage in civilization-building as vice-regents of the King. Accordingly, the church prepares redeemed ‘civilian citizens’ to participate well in human endeavors such as politics, business, the arts, medicine and health care, athletics, science and technology, farming, and economics.”
(Greg R. Allison, “The Kingdom and the Church,” in The Kingdom of God, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), p. 200).
Over the 2,000+ year history of the church, nobody has uncontestedly proven a definitive understanding of the kingdom of God (in a previous post, I mentioned that Howard Snyder, in his book Models of the Kingdom, identified eight (8!) different definitions of the kingdom!).
Questions:
Does this both/and construct solve the issues raised by the opposing sides, or do we have to push for a more specific definition of the kingdom of God?
Where do you finally land in your definition of the kingdom of God?